Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

It's Siddle that gets KP out. Johnson has got him four times out of 20 attempts. Most England players have struggled against Ajmal, Kevin has done comparatively well, look at Bell's record for instance. He played two series against MM and averaged 48.6, including two big hundreds. More runs at a better average than anyone else in the team.

DiligentDefence wrote:A very, very good player, certainly, but not to my mind an all time great. The desire to dominate was too often his downfall. Having got the field pushed back he seemed unwilling just to milk the bowlers.

I don't think anyone on this thread has claimed he is an all time great, or anything like that. Your criticism is reasonable. From other posters, I just get a feeling of resentment that I touched on in my longer posts.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:It's Siddle that gets KP out. Johnson has got him four times out of 20 attempts. Most England players have struggled against Ajmal, Kevin has done comparatively well, look at Bell's record for instance. He played two series against MM and averaged 48.6, including two big hundreds. More runs at a better average than anyone else in the team.

He was mediocre against Ajmal in 2010 and rank poor in 2012, looking even less able to pick him. As for Murali, he was initially brilliant against him, but the bowler increasingly dominated those exchanges. I'm not sure what your point about Johnson is - regardless of who dismissed him, he never did anything particularly great in tests in which he faced Mitch.

Like all arguments about players this one will never be settled because most of it is opinion - I think comparisons with past eras particularly are extremely difficult unless you were closely involved with the higher echelons of the game. Watching cricket now is far more accessible through TV - I don't think we had a TV until the 1960's and the coverage of cricket when we had one bears no resemblance at all to the modern times. My opinions about the past greats are probably very 'rose-tinted' - of course there are facts like uncovered wickets, overs bowled, equipment and so on - but nowhere near the endless analysis of a player, batting or bowling, that is available today worldwide - both to the spectator and the participants

What cannot be changed are the scorebook and individual records - as an England player Pietersen fairs very well in both aspects.

As Albondiga (who I admire very much) one quoted -'Not how - but how many.'

I like to think 'how' as well. We look at players like lara and gower in a different manner because they entertained, and played knocks that had you glued to the tv, or if you're lucky, the seat in the stand. Take Zidane. no great stats, in fact david platt's are possibly better, but he played Football on a different level.

For me, it's definitely 'how' as well as 'how many'

KP comes under the same bracket, hence the 'great' arguments.

I reckon his two centuries in the ODIs, alongside Cook's were the only times on that tour anyone combated Ajmal, maybe Prior in the Tests. But KP didn't do so well in the Tests against him, like his colleagues. If you said he had a weakness against Siddle, I'd have to agree. Johnson, not so much. After he got back to back big hundreds against MM, he only played four more Tests against him. Hardly a slump. Also took runs off Kumble, as well as Warne. I doubt any other England contemporary scored as many as he against these four spinners as a group.

Fair points KJ. I have provided some facts as well as opinion though. It does seem strange to me that we're arguing the toss over a crown with such a small realm. I'm not inducting him into the pantheon here. If we're it's 'how', then he's been watchable. If we're saying it's 'how many' then he's done well there too, for an England player. He probably would have gone past Gooch if his time had run its course. Any career will have its bare patches, even the ATGs (Warne in India. Murali in Australia). It's no good cause to overlook the good stuff.

Anyway, that's enough of me defending the legacy of KP. My views have been expressed in the posts reviewing his career. Unarguably, he has been a figure who has divided the England watching public, but I believe the majority enjoyed his time in our team. Thanks for reading the posts.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Fair points KJ. I have provided some facts as well as opinion though. It does seem strange to me that we're arguing the toss over a crown with such a small realm. I'm not inducting him into the pantheon here. If we're it's 'how', then he's been watchable. If we're saying it's 'how many' then he's done well there too, for an England player. He probably would have gone past Gooch if his time had run its course. Any career will have its bare patches, even the ATGs (Warne in India. Murali in Australia). It's no good cause to overlook the good stuff.

Or not to remember the bad, both on and off the field.

Like many on here I didn't warm to him, but that is even more reason to try to be fair. I often felt a little frustrated by Pietersen because I believe that he was capable of better, if only he would play a little smarter.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Anyway, that's enough of me defending the legacy of KP. My views have been expressed in the posts reviewing his career. Unarguably, he has been a figure who has divided the England watching public, but I believe the majority enjoyed his time in our team. Thanks for reading the posts.

Arthur - you should be congratulated on some top quality writing and even handedness in your responses.

A fine piece of work on a difficult subject that was bound to bring out divisions and comparisons.

Very kind of you KJ, and good to read your view as ever. Even now we can raise a row on the internet about the legacy of Gooch, Gower and Botham. Atherton's declaration, or the coaching of Jimmy Anderson. Pietersen will probably provoke disagreement for a few years yet.

If I have to pay to watch three batsmen bat it would be Lara, Mark Waugh and Pietersen in that order. S'wag comes close. Pietersen was a pure entertainer and if you didn't like his batting then what do you actually like about cricket

A fine article by Dobell.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/con ... 16589.html

Actually, a rather fawning article, making light of Pietersen's faults, overstating his achievements, taking public statements by other players too seriously, showing ignorance of the constraints that contracts can place on people, and a naïve assumption that all people are manageable, similar in tone to some posts on here, even if quite well written.